HBO: The Key To Combating Piracy Is To Make Game Of Thrones More Available... Except Here
from the ah,-right dept
We've had a number of stories concerning the hit TV show Game of Thrones and the issue of people downloading unauthorized copies of the show. Due to a variety of reasons mostly centered around HBO's cable relationships, HBO has not made the show available online, for the most part, unless you already have a cable TV subscription that includes HBO. The math here is a bit silly (due to the ridiculous nature of how pay TV works these days), but HBO more or less has done the math that says it's better off losing out on people who are willing to pay and who will inevitably infringe instead, by not pissing off the pay TV folks who pay them a much bigger lump sum. I think this is short sighted, because while the math works out today, the trend is in the wrong direction, and if HBO doesn't get in front of that trend, by the time the math "catches up," they could be in a lot of trouble.Indeed, HBO seems irked that Game of Thrones is the most "pirated" show on TV. And while it has tested out a standalone version of its HBOGo online offering, the reviews have not been great.
However, it appears that HBO is trying to do something about all of this, admitting that they need to and intend to make the show more widely available online:
According to Jeff Cusson, HBO’s senior vice president of corporate affairs, “We think the key to combating piracy is to make content like Game of Thrones available worldwide within the smallest window possible…to 176 territories within the week of the U.S. premiere.”First off, it's great that they recognize that the key is making the show more widely available. That's a step up from blaming fans who want to see the show but can't. Of course, it's still ridiculous that HBO Go can't work on other TVs other than "selected Samsung" TVs. But... none of this seems to apply to the US.
Cusson said, “HBO is also rolling out HBO Go internationally,” which means many viewers in Europe, Latin America, and in other locations like Hong Kong can watch Game of Thrones at their leisure on their iPad/iPhone, Roku, Xbox 360s, their Android devices, and selected Samsung Smart HDTVs.
When pressed on doing more in the US, Cusson begins answering by not answering.
When asked about the prevalence of piracy in America, Cusson said, “We utilized various tools to protect our copyright in 2012.” I countered that they didn’t work, because it was still the most downloaded show that year. Cusson responded, “We think the success of our business shows that our approach is relatively successful.”Of course, at one level, he's absolutely right. There's no reason to "stop" piracy if it's not actually harming the show (and, in fact, may very well be helping it). But, at some point, HBO is going to need to realize that it has to make the jump to providing authorized access to Americans who don't have a traditional cable connection. And the longer they wait, the harder it becomes to get people to invest in HBO, because they'll get used to unauthorized alternatives.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: accessibility, game of thrones, hbo, piracy, windows
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly...
I only heard about it when I heard people complaining about not being able to watch it and had to pirate it.
I haven't even done that, so...
*Shrugs* IDK, I just haven't found a reason to watch it, at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honestly...
Thats usually enough to make me want to check something out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Honestly...
As for Game Of Thrones, I've not seen it myself either but my general impression seems to be that it's a well made fantasy drama with an epic scope concentrating on a range of characters and political intruigue. If that sounds like your kind of thing, check it out. If not, and your reaction is "meh", seek out something that appeals to you more. You don't have to follow the crowd just because everyone else is talking about something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
I agree, but they will usually give me a reason to check it out myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not his cup of tea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honestly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honestly...
Then why are you commenting on something you haven't even seen, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Honestly...
I'm not commenting on the series itself, am I?
I'm commenting on the fact that A: I haven't seen it, B: I don't see the big deal and C: I only found out about it because people were complaining they couldn't watch it without pirating it.
Let me ask you something, isn't that why certain shows/books/movies die off?
Because people don't know about them.
Firefly is an example of such a series.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
It's not that people didn't know about it, it's just that series such as Firefly are aimed at a particular group of people overall, it's a niche show. But with time and viewings it grows on the "average" television viewer.
However, Firefly's demise is largely the fault of Fox, insofar as executive decisions made by those at Fox caused it to largely be missed by its core audience. It was originally aired out of the order for which Whedon intended it to be viewed, it was also shifted around in the airings schedule to the point that even most die hard fans gave up on trying to figure out when it would air, and it was also preempted several times by the MLB Playoffs (if memory serves me correctly).
Nor is this the first time Fox has done this. The same thing happened years before with the show Titus (of which I'm a huge fan of as well). And it did the same with Arrested Development. Both shows of which have gone on to have huge cult followings from people who largely missed the shows when they first aired, and only heard about them after the fact from die hard fans (like myself).
It's reasons like that for which I'm glad we're (very) slowly getting away from traditional television viewing methods. By which I specifically mean Netflix and Amazon's Instant offerings. House of Cards is an amazing show that was released in its entirety on day one. Meaning all 13 episodes were released at the same time on the same day on Netflix. No waiting, no advertisements, watch at your convenience. Arrested Development (which Netflix is producing) is due to be released in the same manner. House of Cards has garnered rave reviews from critics and average people alike. I got hooked the day it came out and have slowly made fans of other people I know. Through such efforts, on the part of the new business models/corporations and fans like myself, we can hopefully show the legacy players how things can be done and how they can be monetized effectively, while still being done in a manner which gives the people exactly what they want and how they want it as soon as possible (without the dreaded "p" word raising it's ugly head).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
You ignorant fucking hayseed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!
your ignorance is stupendous!
I'm not from the south.
I'm not a redneck.
I might not be a west coast hippie or an elite New Englander, but I'm certainly no redneck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
Calling him "boy" was an indication of his apparent immaturity, not his race.
Learn to read, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
You ignorant fucking hayseed."
Is silverscarcat Black?
There's nothing to indicate the ethnicity of either him or me.
(How do you know I'm not Black?)
The reference was to his immature attitude, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
Which is commenting on something without seeing it.
"...I don't see the big deal..."
Since you haven't seen it.
"...I only found out about it because people were complaining they couldn't watch it without pirating it..."
You...
Don't go on-line?
Don't watch TV?
Don't go to bookstores or comic book shops?
Promo and publicity about the series has been all over the place.
Hell, the Simpsons spoofed the show's opening in one of their own opening sequences...a sure sign of mainstream notice.
So, what basement without wi-fi have you been living in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honestly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Honestly...
There a point there?
Maybe it is entertaining, I just haven't seen it, that's all.
That hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honestly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We cannae do it captian!
If only there was some kind of technology that could do that today, one that was fast, efficient and possibly peer-to-peer so it didn't tax the bandwidth on their own servers.
Imagine the possibilities if that kind of technology existed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
Television is essentially advertising supported. Movies are mostly not. Therefore television shows can be successful in spite of this sort of theft. -- However, there's a tipping point: advertisers want their ads to be seen, and if shows are pirated with ads removed (likely more common in US), that scheme collapses too.
And of course for movies, because there's no revenue without theaters and DVD sales, allowing rampant piracy is total non-starter.
So once again sum here is that Mike keeps implicitly pushing the notion that new ways are possible without advertising income, and he's plainly wrong.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where arrogance meets ignorance to discuss what they'll do with someone else's 100 million dollar movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
Mike is pushing, as Cusson says himself, that legal, unhindered, online services that are user-friendly and easy to pay for (buy cards at stores with cash instead of only "enter credit card" for example).
Cusson admits that locking it down doesn't work and that people WILL PAY when given the option, no windows, no restrictions.
That does NOT matter if it is a movie or a TV show.
You missed the big picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
No one here advocates the future should be everything given away for free. But whatever. Changing your nickname from Ethical Fan to Video Fan doesn't hide who you really are. Not to mention your drivel is exactly that, and not representative of what this site or its supporters promote.
But we support your right to act as a twat and try to be condescending towards people who stand up against bullshit enforcement methods that don't work. You know what CastleLowery? If you had your way and enforcement stopped infringement completely, killing off all independent competition, you'd still be fucked over by the label and no one would buy your crap (or listen to your rants).
So you'd still be miserable and without income from your creative works.
No one will support a self-entitled artist who treats people (potential fans or not) like crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
Right here is the fundamental problem with so many self-proclaimed friends of the creator.
They insist bitterly that somebody "moved" media producers to a marketplace where their products had less market value.
Nobody "moved" producers to this new reality. They did not "move" themselves there.
Digital audio and video files simply have no market value, so they have less perceived value. Content on the Internet is not "free" - its value as a commodity is zero. TechDirt articles are worth exactly as much as Games of Thrones episodes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
Whereas as you spout a bunch of crap without informing anyone what the reality is we're all missing. You attack people for not knowing "the truth", but never bother to actually tell anyone what "the truth" is. I wonder why.
Come on, put money where your mouth is, post the business information and model data you're basing your words on for everyone else to look at since we don't know how things "really work".
"Television is essentially advertising supported."
HBO isn't, from my understanding. Even if it is, the article is warning against the increasing trend for people to not watch "television" in its legacy form, thus fewer viewers, thus less advertising revenue. Thus the need to get content to people in forms where they will consume it. Even a mental midget such as yourself should be able to work this out.
"And of course for movies, because there's no revenue without theaters and DVD sales"
The rental market doesn't exist now? Streaming? Digital sales? Licencing to other media and other merchandise? No wonder your arguments are so dumb, you've literally rejected most of the movie industry before you started.
"allowing rampant piracy is total non-starter."
Please link to the assertion that any revenue stream suggested here requires those to disappear (hint: you can't because that's never been stated). Oh, and according to you people we already have rampant piracy, yet theatrical grosses were at an all time high AGAIN this year.
Why do you insist on such blatant lies? At least pick a falsehood that can't be proven wrong in 2 seconds with facts and logic.
"Mike keeps implicitly pushing the notion that new ways are possible without advertising income"
Aren't you one of the morons who keeps attacking Mike for defending Google's ad income because so many people make millions from it through piracy? Or does your bullshit just change depending on what happens to be more convenient at the given moment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
Or one might argue: piracy is currently in a grey area and heavily policed by content providers. Mike and others want the companies to back off, thus declaring it legal; the companies want to crack down and make it harder. It can't stay in this grey area for long. If we follow Mike's ideas and declare torrenting fully legal, the content providers might imagine that a lot more people would opt for the free content rather than pay for it. I'm sure you think otherwise, and also think that if 7-Eleven didn't have staff, people would pay for their stuff willingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
No. Mike and the others (including myself) want the companies to offer decent services that bear relation to the reality of the modern marketplace. A marketplace where regional windowing is ineffective, where people won't pay a premium to route around artificial blocks and where customers won't put up attempts to restrict them in ridiculous ways because some people find it more profitable. THEN they can start attacking piracy.
"the companies want to crack down and make it harder"
Indeed. the problem is, they make like more difficult for people who never pirate. Plus, if they don't offer a reasonable alternative for people to go to when they stop pirating, they're still not going to get people paying for their content.
Here's a fact: the "policing" of piracy is not only ineffective, it's giving content owners the excuse to pretend modern market realities don't exist. This mean they're not offering services that people want, so even if piracy were to disappear completely (an impossible goal), those "lost sales" caused by piracy won't appear 100%. Rather than policing, they need to start offering customers a product they want - for example, being able to watch the HBO shows they want without having to subscribe to a full cable package before they're even given the option to add HBO to it. Pointing this out is not supporting piracy.
"If we follow Mike's ideas and declare torrenting fully legal"
Please link to the article where he's stated this is the goal.
"I'm sure you think otherwise, and also think that if 7-Eleven didn't have staff, people would pay for their stuff willingly."
I'm sure I don't have to point out again how stupid this kind of deflection is, and how little bearing it has on the actual argument being made. Repeating a total fallacy won't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
Torrenting already is fully legal. I think you're referring to pirating, not using bittorrent.
Your analysis relies on a bunch of fallacious assumptions about the goals and intent of Mike and others here, regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
Television is essentially advertising supported. Movies are mostly not.
Another proof you don't have a clue we are talking about a fucking tv show aired on cable. Idiot.
So once again sum here is that Mike keeps implicitly pushing the notion that new ways are possible without advertising income, and he's plainly wrong.
Welcome to the future: Netflix, cable TV (YES, it should not be supported by advertisement)... Do us a favor and shut up. Actually it's gonna be a favor to yourself. You'll stop looking like a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
The moron strikes again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
True for over-the-air tv, boy.
But HBO (and other "premium" channels) is subscriber-supported.
No ads.
Think before you keyboard...if you can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
And what's stopping them from adding a small logo in the lower left right corner so even fileshares will see it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
says the troll about a show on a PAY CHANNEL that doesn't even have ads.
And you wonder why you get auto-reported on EVERY post. It's not "censoring," it's because you push your "copyright rah rah nothing bad ever comes of it" to the point of idiocy, even in the face of direct contradictory, provable evidence and then make comments like this that don't even apply.
But "piracy" is the problem. Right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
Why don't you take a loopy tour by shoving your head up your ass? See if talking out of your ass while talking into it has any interest effects. Nobody takes you seriously and nobody respects anything you say. You're a complete joke and you get yourself reported every time you open your obnoxious mouth. Take a hint, you're just an annoying little prick that nobody likes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
I find it particularly silly that people are claiming that they need to do so, not only on an article where a premium cable channel is being discussed, but in an era where Netflix is being successful at delivering their own original content. If you need evidence that some people round here are full of crap, you only have top look at the news about the very industry they claim to be defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Here"? Is Techdirt USA-only?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Here"? Is Techdirt USA-only?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Here"? Is Techdirt USA-only?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Here"? Is Techdirt USA-only?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Here"? Is Techdirt USA-only?
I'm more intrigued as to where this HBO Go I can use from Europe is hiding. If I try going there, I get told it's only available in the US...
EDIT: Just before submitting this, I found the address http://www.hbogo.eu/, which appears to only service eastern Europe and the Netherlands. So, still nothing for me it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great post
1) HBO should be required by law to produce Game of Thrones;
2) HBO should be prevented by law from charging for views, selling advertising, or otherwise receiving income from Game of Thrones.
call it "absolute media freedom"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: great post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about realising that the Internet is global and release your content everywhere at the same time. We have to wait several years in some cases for TV shows to arrive in the UK (I have a couple of favourites that have finished seasons 5 and 6 in the US but we are still waiting for season 3 and 4).
Windowed release models only feed piracy and there is no technical reason why we cannot be allowed to at least subscribe to US TV.
Just something to consider
Yours Sincerely
A concerned TV fan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They can't get over the fact that releasing it Wednesday, it may still be Tuesday somewhere, therefore no one will watch it when they release it Wednesday.
Welcome to Imaginary Property land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broadcast the day after US screening in the UK
This is why SKY (UK Satelitte broadcaster) is showing it only one day after the US (Sky Atlantic channel).
http://skyatlantic.sky.com/game-of-thrones/game-of-thrones-season-3-to-air-one-day-after-us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Broadcast the day after US screening in the UK
Since, if the Game of Thrones airs on, let's say Sunday, because who would air programs on Saturday anyway? If the GoT airs on Sunday in the U.S., it would be like... Super Early morning Monday in the U.K. when it airs in the U.S.
That wouldn't really work, would it?
If it airs at like 8 PM on Monday in the U.K., then people in the U.K. don't lose out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GOT widely available except for US
The people in charge of HBO have thought patterns guided by the idea that they must squeeze out every last cent. Ironically, this keeps them from making more money than they are making now.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I don't understand is this, if someone doesn't have cable or dish or direct tv, how would those providers even know that the person had an online on subscription to HBO?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Combating Piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2229349
Masnick is gonna be hitting the bottle early today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One can easily conclude causality from coincidence, such as increase in movie quality or legal services expanding to new territories.
I wonder if their study takes into account of the indies who lost income because of Mega's takedown?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are many more factors to consider here than just the shutting down of Megaupload.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2229349
Masnick is gonna be hitting the bottle early today.
Sorry. That does not compute. Chicken Mike has already determined that all attempts at enforcement of IP are futile. People only react to incentives, not penalties. Every study Mike likes is perfect, while every study that disagrees with Mike's predetermined conclusions are ipso facto debunked. Ergo, that paper is erroneous. QED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps because there's nothing you can do to stop it and there never will be? Seriously, fighting against online infringement is like tearing open a pillow and tossing it to the wind. How the hell do you put the feathers back? How do you control that? Face it, the internet has rendered copyright obsolete. The war was fought and won a long time ago and the winner was the citizens of the internet. As time goes on, it will become far more difficult to deter infringement. Copying only gets easier.
What's more, why should it be dissuaded? You assume that it's somehow wrong and therefor a mandate to punish the action is implied. The internet is pure communication (i.e. speech), end of story. By demanding punishment for copyright infringement, you're seeking to punish people for communicating information you don't want them to. Punishing people for communicating, regardless of whether a price tag attached to it, is the very definition of censorship. I'd say it's far more wrong to enforce copyright than it is to violate it. Illegal != wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They can have an effect (pushing people to darknet, for example) and still be useless. And you know that.
At the end of the day, piracy is the fault of people like you who make the pro-copyright side look bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Piracy is often in the imagination of the party who falsely claims his rights are violated. And you don't read that on TechDirt because the team likes to make trolls like you think you have a chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You obviously weren't on the debate team in high school...presuming you finished high school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
lol
Go tell Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum that.
Maybe you'd like to pay their fines and legal bills with some fantasy-money as long as you're in pretending mode.
As far as enforcement not working, how much internet infringement do you think those two are engaging in now, hmm?
You're a fucking idiot, Greevar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're the idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Making legal content more available IS HOW YOU DISSUADE INFRINGERS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They've earned this and they're getting what they deserve. If they want us to stop, they're going to have to start treating us like actual customers and not a revenue resource to exploit. Give us universal access to everything for a reasonable cost. No region locks, no windows, no device restrictions, no circle jerk piracy PSA that imply the paying customer is a criminal, and no more abusing copyright to censor expression. I demand that I be able to enjoy the content I pay for at my convenience and on my terms. The content industry only has the right to say who gets a copy and how, but they do not have the right to tell me how I can experience it.
When I start censoring your speech and expression, I'll concede that I deserve a beating for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enforcement isn't free.
Punishments are already way out of hand. If anything they need to be scaled back to something comparable to real world theft and actual damages.
You could go Robocop on jaywalking and speeding and it would make about as much sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Newsflash: being consistent is only a good thing if you're not a complete screwup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It sure doesn't seem like it's telling the truth.
I seem to recall that, before Megaupload got taken down, there was a massive global recession going on.
And the economy is only starting to slowly stop going down hill now.
Hmm...
I think that it might be more accurate to say that people (in some areas) are making more money so they can spend more on movies than they were before.
But, no, of course, not, it's all piracy's fault that movies aren't selling well.
Can't be anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When you can't poke holes in the paper substantively, make vague assertions about the author's credibility, right? Real convincing. Spoken like one of Mike's Chosen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Care to elaborate? I understand that you're not able to discuss the paper on the merits. But are you also not able to explain how you determined that they have "an agenda"? I know this is TD, so chances are you live in your mom's basement and ride a skateboard, but perhaps you'll have something interesting to say. Do share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://academics.wellesley.edu/Economics/bdanaher/research.html
http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~md s/
Please go whine somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, argumentum ad hominem. Always so convincing! Oh wait, isn't that what you were complaining about too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A big pile of bullsh*t
You've got to offer something worth buying. You have to convince the customer to give you money. You are competing against EVERYTHING that can consume the customer's time or money.
In general, business is tough and it's not for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you could call it something bizarre like trichordist.com or something, and maybe create a few sister sites and link to them, cross posting frequently, and hope no one notices.
Then you can have your consensus and supporters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Care to explain how you "observed" this?
For someone calling us all kids, you're comments are incredibly childish. It shows how weak you think your own argument is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...which just happens to be an outright lie based on laughable clich�s and blind assumptions rather than anything to do with verifiable facts or visible truth, topped with a nice bit of childish behaviour.
Wait, that explains everything now - that's exactly how you come to your beliefs about piracy and new business models as well! Thanks for admitting your delusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Get out of the 1950s and join the rest of us in the year 2013.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You go HBO - be like Kodak!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A new business model
Seems to me that the message here is that the business model for addictive shows behind paywalls should include file-sharing, at least at first.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that the show is popular, despite its being behind two paywalls, because people got the crack for free?
Now that people are addicted, HBO wants to convert them ... makes sense. But that's different from thinking piracy is empirically a problem for them. In a world without file-sharing, the show would probably be a DVD cult classic at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A new business model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nonavailability for paying members
"To watch HBO Go, you must reside within the 50 states of the United States of America. " - HBO Go. Anywhere
So even thoughsomeone is a paying subscriber, the use of the service is restricted. What about work or travel abroad where the local TV content either sucks or is limited to a language the subscriber can't speak? Anywhere, my butt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]